And you may remember that Dr Emma Tate had invited me awhile back to speak at Ryerson University on a Saturday.

And that's being a rather popular YouTube video.

And he's being defending me and making comments about free speech on the Ontario Psychological Association list.

Serv.

That's correct.

If I got the details right?

Yes.

Well, maybe you could tell everybody what's been happening.

Okay, sure.

So back in November 1 of our members, I won't put out her name, but she wrote, Ah, piece where she basically I'll just say what I wrote.

She basically said that, um that you shouldn't have a forum for discussing what you were supposed to discuss.

And that was the talk that you were going to have the University of Toronto.

The debate right, The debate.

Exactly.

And so she wrote a piece on and put online, and she posted to the list serv and I essentially wrote in my email to the list of ever, ever in a number of comments about this on.

Mostly, I've been saying, every time one of your stories comes up or another similar story comes out I'm posting it.

They're saying, Look, this is what's going on.

This is not some mad ramblings.

This is a legitimate concern about ideology run amok.

And either I get met by silence or I get people, you know, ask me why I'm so angry or why I'm taking so personally or I get people email me back channel mostly older people, mostly older psychologists who say we support you completely but were afraid to say anything because of the consequences.

And what do you think they're?

What consequences do you think they're afraid of that?

I don't know.

I mean, I some of them work with these colleagues.

Others may be trying to get professorships.

They're trying to get tenure, and they're afraid that the people who do ah hold positions in aka in academia could hold him down.

I think that it's a perverse effect of the 10 year system, me because it tends to silence people before they have tenure, and so that of course, they practice being silent.

And by the time they do have tenure, if you've practiced being silent for 100 10 years, then or six years for that matter, then it's gonna be pretty hard to break that habit.

So So what?

So what are they objecting to with regards to your postings?

So whenever I post something, it starts off pretty neutrally.

And I've written a long message to the Ontario Psychological Association I sent to the president.

I asked him to read it to them.

They are convening, or they had convened a meeting to deal with this issue.

And it was very, very long.

And I said, I have not actually do anything wrong.

I post links to story such as yours, like the last Friday wanted McMaster.

And then somebody goes one of two ways.

Either somebody will imp you might character or my motives.

Recently, somebody had implied that your message is full of hate.

They actually use that words and some of us hate in his heart, you know, so and by extension myself or they will ask a question and I will address it.

But for the most part, they're mischaracterizing what I'm stating.

And so I will simply say, Look, I did not say that.

Show me where I said that, and more often than not, they're not picking on any specific issue.

It's just the theme because on the O.

P.

A.

Apparently, if you're on one side of an issue, it's okay.

If you occupy a different position, they won't accept it.

And so what?

What do you think is going to happen and what have people like you said that they've convened in a so called emergency meeting about this issue and right?

So do you have any idea why it's an emergency and and what what they're planning to do?

Well, I think they considered emergency because one of the board members, she's the one who wrote that piece saying that you shouldn't have this debate and I She took umbrage at a post.

I wrote where you know she's from Boise and you know, I don't say this like I'm not being facetious.

She's from Boise and that boy zero instituted the studies and education for those of you who don't know and it's a you might.

If you're feeling charitable, you would recall it regarded as ideologically possessed, right?

So So she's from Boise, and she's the one who wrote the piece, and then somebody else will always, he wrote What anybody, any reasonable person would say.

It was a fair comment, which is trying to say, Look, can we all just be a bit more polite in our tone?

More respectful And she listed five points that we should all aspire to, which I don't disagree with.

But the problem is, she's also from always E.

And there's a subtext to the message, which is basically this message is directed at me.

So what I did was, I wrote, and by the way she posted this after the president had already shut down the discussion.

As soon as he shuts it down, I you know, I retract.

I'm not going to say anything but to other people put postings on and they know directly, you know, basically, like I said, they mischaracterized me.

Andre, look me try to make me look bad.

And so I spoke out and in one of my pieces I said to her, If you really believe in what you're saying, I said, Please make sure you apply this to the people who are on the other side.

The ones were calling to shut down this discussion, I said, Can you say that the president of the O.

P.

A.

Shutdown?

The discussion What exactly does that mean?

How does he believe?

How does he do that?

And why did he do it?

Well, he sends out an email and says, Please, this is getting a bit out of hand.

Will you please not talk about this?

That's about the extent of it.

And reasonable people will refrain.

Actually was reasonable.

That's a, uh, people try not to cause conflict.

Well, stop posting, which I have done, and their concern is I think, that the tone gets out of hand.

And again, I don't think there's any tone.

The worst you can say about my tone is it's blunt.

There's no name calling.

It's literally every single time I say, Show me where I said this, you know, Or if you, you know you're mischaracterizing that or I say your argument is irrational, it Sorry z relevant.

Basically, you know, don't appeal to emotion.

We're dealing with facts here.

Let's deal with them and, you know, and the Tauron Do you have any examples of this sort of things that you've posted that you could get your share with us?

Certainly.

So in one of the posting.

So this woman who again posted something that seemed reasonable.

Um, I basically said to her, I said something.

I'll just read a couple of paragraphs.

Some members might find my direct, rational, logical and fact based fact based messages not only with respect to the issues themselves, but also with respect to Crane's, made by those who disagree with me.

For instance, when I respectfully state, please show me where he said or did this to be rude, offensive or inappropriate, which to me is a gross misuse of such terms.

However, some of those same people have directly stated or implied that I am a misogynist, a transform a big, hateful, reprehensible, unreasonable and unwilling or unable to engage in a respectful discourse.

The next step is where I got where things got heated, I said, Moreover, and I meant to the colleague I alluded to a few minutes ago explicitly stated on this list serve in November that she did not believe that Jordan Peterson should have been given a forum to discuss what any reasonable person would agree is far from an unequivocal issue.

She posted a link I posted to an online article she Cro co wrote, and this is critical that stated her reasons for what most objective people should find a concerning call for censorship of not only non hateful ideas but also scientific investigation and discussion as well.

A civil debate about poorly conceptualizing worded legislation that could potentially cause unforeseen harm.

I wrote that, and her response was she actually posted a response on Guy hadn't heard from her for quite some time and just read it.

She posted Orin Amitay.

I have just as much right to express my opinion as anyone else.

I already put you on notice once, but I will say it again.

Please leave me alone.

That's what I think led to the emergency meeting.

And, you know, look at the context.

I have every right.

I have just as much right to express my opinion as anyone else.

I agree with that.

But why would she be calling for other people not to have that same right?

Hypocrisy is astounding, and so will you.

I really don't know.

They may ask Meteo, you know, to leave the O.

P.

A.

They may ask me to leave the list.

Serv.

I'm one of the O.

P.

A strongest advocates.

I just You know I Every time I'm on in the media, I will mention the work that they do.

They do a lot of excellent work, including the president.

So Van Roy, he's He's not excellent for homelessness and for promoting psychology.

So the worst they can do is try to kick me out.

I know that this member in question was trying todo it acts something against me.

So, uh, censure, like more formal censure.

It never happened.

A psycho public rebuke on what grounds?

Precisely mean you read some of the things that you've written.

I mean, why is it that you're being targeted?

Well, first for an emergency meeting, which seems a bit like overkill, but perhaps it isn't.

But what is it That there?

What is it that they have on you, so to speak, That would result in in centering of that sort.

They literally have nothing because I have not called anybody names.

You know, Even when I called a member immature, I didn't name them at all.

So the worst they can say is the tone might become good hostile.

But this is what worries me.

I again I might be forceful.

I might be blunt might be repetitive and propose, but I stick to the facts on right and the problem is those facts on the wrong side of their ideology, and that's what's propelling them and compelling them.

And the other thing is, that says, I mentioned, he even sees cortical dozens of complaints from members who this is what is incredible, who are basically saying that they do not want.

They can't tolerate the distress that comes along with knowing that I'm writing e mails to the list, sir, and that they might give up their membership.

This is the kind of issue that's going on and again, if you look at my post and I've written to the Opie, and every time someone criticizes me, I specifically right, show me one thing that I've written that's inappropriate or offensive.

You know, no one's ever called and they can't and you have a record of all these postings.

I presume I have them all.

Yes, and there.

Is there anything in them that you would be?

I mean, that you've written that you would be unwilling to make public, assuming that you could get rid of names and so one that might identify people.

Is there anything that would make you uncomfortable about revealing publicly?

The only thing I would be concerned about is making sure that we're not violating some ethical code, which I guess would be portraying the psychology dear psychologist in a negative light.

I don't know if this qualifies, is that I think this would be having an honest discussion about personal bias.

You would only be, I would suspect, responsible for portraying psychology in a negative light.

If your portrayal was unfounded from a factual perspective, I would presume.

I mean, that's what I think, reasonable leeway in a in a policy of that sort, although the problem is those things are subject to interpretation, right?

And that's my concern.

Is that interpretation?

I will see legal counsel.

I don't know if our coverage applies to such a situation, but I will ask the lawyers that we have insurance for and see if this would would count is that you get it's happened.

What's happened to you if anything, as a consequence for hosting me at Ryerson, I mean, that was gone a lot of attention.

The only consequence is that people have been thanking me for being someone who's standing out and saying You're standing up and saying We need to have this discussion nothing.

So car, yeah, that's thank you.

Now the thing is, my next contract is coming due at Ryerson.

Obsessional electro been teaching for 15 years.

I always get positions I apply for.

We could have talked so often A total 160 courses of high universities, excellent reviews.

And if I find this term, that's the first time ever I don't get the positions.

I apply court.

That's the consequence.

We will find out.

I don't think that they would do that.

I could get a pretty strong union, but I don't have tenure as we're talking about it.

I don't have a secure position, and, you know, I've got a very busy clinical practice.

But to stop teaching, to be not to be able to communicate with students who want to learn who want to learn of a critical thinking, being motivated to challenge ideas, you have that you know of a horrible consequence.

Yeah, well, there's always YouTube, you know?

I mean that that's right, what's what's facing you.

But, you know, it is certainly possible if you've got something to say that people need to hear and actually constitutes reasonable quality education that in a I would not say precisely in a pinch.

But it certainly is an alternative.

And you have full control over that.

We'll be very interesting to see what happens with your with your contract.

Renewal and weaken.

Certainly have another talk at that time, whether it goes badly or whether it goes well either way.

So what do you think's gonna happen to you?